It’s always gotten crap for being the weakest full powered rifle cartridge of the time
The issue with what you are saying is that we already have an established logic of gun damage balance, just look at bolt actions dealing much more damage than MGs despite using the same ammo.
Sure we could go the full realism way, but then the question becomes what even realistic damage is?
Kinetic energy is a good point to start from, but far from the only aspect. Round shape, material, bullet flight stability or tumbling and even overpenetration all determine what a bullet does to the human body, not to mention where do we start to decide what is lethal and what is not?
In the end we have a simple damage system, and we have guns that either 1 or 2 shot kill or 3 shot kill for very weak SMGs + we have bullet damage drop at ranges.
I don’t want to tell you we are at a very realistic level of damage, but compared to other shooters it gets the job well done to stay believable.
Tell you what, I’ll hit 2 birds with 1 stone.
We move the federov avtomat to the automatic rifle slot, give it type hei auto damage and 75 rounds of ammo total.
This’ll give the soviets the higher capacity automatic rifle they’ve been asking so badly for, and we don’t have to pretend that 6.5 arisaka is an intermediate cartridge.
Then the AS-44 can be all alone in the soviet assault rifle category.
that would be a huge nerf to Thompsons…
I believe I have a good system in mind that allows both the “fun/arcady” feeling of a video game and satisfies my desire for consistent gun stats
We take one firearm for a base, a starting point, and we then compare all other guns in the game ballistically and derive damages accordingly. And yes there’s more to ballistics than grain and velocity, but that’s just the simplest way to get my point across without explaining every last detail of ballistics. Lol. As for things like over penetration, I think it’s fair to overlook things like that seeing as how Panther’s don’t spontaneously combust themselves all the time. As is, we just care about potential energy transfer upon impact. As far as bullet drop, bigger slower bullets (aka .45 ACP) should have more significant drop both in velocity and damage than smaller, faster bullets.
Now, I believe the base gun should be the Kar98k, as it is the karabiner version of the rifle most rifles of the time are based on. Give or take British and Soviet rifles. We give the Kar98k a damage value fitting such a rifle. 22 damage, 2 damage, whatever value we think the Kar98k should have. Now, compare every single firearm to it in ballistic performance and give it a damage number that corresponds to that performance comparison. This fixes the “so SMG’s should kill a man with a single shot to the chest?” problem
As for dispersion! We should entirely rework it from the ground up. No more random and arbitrary values. We go by MOA now. Most military grade rifles are 1 MOA or better nowadays. Doing some quick research, it seems the M1 Garand had about 2-4 MOA, so let’s say 3 as it seems to show up a lot and call it a day. That being said, army tests show it could consistently hit a target at 500 yards…Geez it seems trying to research this is a pain. Here have this:
“
Bottomline per these military specifications, the maximum allowable accuracy was more of less:
6.1 MOA for rebuilt M1s (circa 1965 documentation)
5.0 MOA for new M1s (circa 1950 documentation)
4.1 MOA for M2 FMJ/ball ammo (not sure of date, but I think early to mid 1940s)
3.1 MOA for original National Match M1 Garands (presumably 1953 era)
1.x MOA for M72 Match Ammo (MOA varied year-to-year b/t 1953-1963 during the National Matches, but needless to say it was 2 to 3 times more accurate than regular old M2 ball ammo)
“
What a pain
Regardless! MOA should be use for firearms rather than random number generator go!
Moving on!
Actually that might be the end of my point. Lol
1 Like
Nah I think .45 would benefit. It’s got really good energy transfer to target IRL. Good enough to put a cow down in one shot, which is the entire point of the caliber having been made is that it’s THAT powerful. 9mm on the other hand might suffer as older loads aren’t as good as modern ones
I might add that’s .45 ACP out of a M1911. Thompson has a longer barrel (more powder burn)
I hear people claim its energy transfer is very similar to 9mm - which proves my point that all of these things are extremely up for debate
In the modern day .45 ACP and 9mm have very similar terminal ballistics, yes
However, we’re not talking about modern loads. This is the 1940’s and these cartridges are NOT the same. We can look no further than the very test I mentioned earlier. The Thompson-LaGarde Tests
The tests were conducted at the Nelson Morris Company Union Stock Yards in Chicago, Illinois, using both live cattle outside a local slaughterhouse, as well as some human cadavers. To consider different combinations of factors, several different calibers were used during the tests: 7.65×21mm Parabellum (.30 Luger), 9×19mm Parabellum (Germany), .38 Long Colt, .38 ACP, blunt and hollow-point .45 Colt (US), .476 Eley (UK), and the “cupped” .455 Webley (UK).
the Board was of the opinion that a bullet, which will have the shock effect and stopping effect at short ranges necessary for a military pistol or revolver, should have a caliber not less than .45. … None of the full-jacketed or metal-patch bullets (all of which were less than cal. . 45) showed the necessary shock effect or stopping power for a service weapon. …
We are not acquainted with any bullet fired from a hand weapon that will stop a determined enemy when the projectile traverses soft parts alone. The requirements of such a bullet would need to have a sectional area like that of a 3-inch solid shot the recoil from which when used in hand weapons would be prohibitive. …
Now granted these tests weren’t the best and shining example of scientific research. That being said, the end result speaks for itself. .45 won the bid for being the new handgun caliber.
idk why they should use firearms MOA when everything else is made up(recoil, damage, ADS speed, rof etc.).
1 Like
I’m literally arguing for MOA alongside realistic, or just fricking consistent, damage
RoF should also be realistic. MOA is apparently hard to find and damage is subject to debate based on how you want to scale performance to a number increase or decrease, but RoF is an extremely hard number that should under no circumstances be uncertain
extremely hard?
mg42
m1944 hyde
ppsh41
stg44
mg 34
fedorov
thompson
Bolts, springs, and loads my guy. Pick a number. Lol
1 Like
exactly. they just pick a random number that is in guns operating range for balance(or lack of balance).
1 Like
no,dumb idea
According to this source the second FG was only lowered to 750 RPM so it looks like actually the 600 RPM might be BS and not the 750.
1 Like
Correct the FG42 fire rate?
You surely mean type I should have 900 rpm instead of 750 like the type II had.
Here is my source:
He is clearly firing the type II, judging by the video the fire rate must 750 rpm.
Wikipedia references the German manual for the weapons so it’s very accurate actually.
It’s always best to trust the country’s own manual as evaluation by other armed forces can be often flawed such as the Fedorov Avtomat has 400 rpm according to American thus most western sources, but the original manual for the gun which is more accurate has the correct 600 rpm.
2 Likes
Nope, i was not even talking about the type 1 at all.